Tag Archives: Palestinian/Israeli Conflict

On May 22, 2011, President Obama followed up his controversial May 19 speech on the Middle East and Palestinian/Israel conflict with an address to the American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC). Some political pundits assert that he backed down from previous assertions concerning Israel’s boundaries made in his May 19 speech on the Middle East. Though charming and conciliatory in tone when speaking to the 10,000 pro-Israel AIPAC delegates, as I read his speech I cannot agree with those pundits. As far as I can see, he did not back down or change his central assertions that Israel must fully withdraw its military from Judea and Samaria and that Israel must agree to establishing its new borders along pre-1967 borders.

He states:

…no matter how hard it may be to start meaningful negotiations under the current circumstances, we must acknowledge that a failure to try is not an option. The status quo is unsustainable. That is why on Thursday, I stated publicly the principles that the United States believes can provide a foundation for negotiations toward an agreement to end the conflict …

That doesn’t sound like backing down to me. That sounds like a defense or justification for those assertions.

Obama’s Justifications Restated

He also restated three reasons/justifications (and added a fourth and very disturbing new justification) for his controversial initiative and push for indefensible pre-1967 borders as a pre-condition for peace. He continues:

First, the number of Palestinians living west of the Jordan River is growing rapidly and fundamentally reshaping the demographic realities of both Israel and the Palestinian territories. This will make it harder and harder-without peace-to maintain Israel as both a Jewish state and a democratic state. Second, technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself in the absence of a genuine peace. And third, a new generation of Arabs is reshaping the region. A just and lasting peace can no longer be forged with one or two Arab leaders. Going forward, millions of Arab citizens have to see that peace is possible for that peace to be sustained.

However, it is his fourth and disturbing new justification that really caught my attention.

In his words:

Just as the context has changed in the Middle East, so too has it been changing in the international community over the last several years. There is a reason why the Palestinians are pursuing their interests at the United Nations. They recognize that there is impatience with the peace process — or the absence of one. Not just in the Arab World, but in Latin America, in Europe, and in Asia. That impatience is growing, and is already manifesting itself in capitols around the world. …But the march to isolate Israel internationally — and the impulse of the Palestinians to abandon negotiations — will continue to gain momentum in the absence of a credible peace process and alternative. For us to have leverage with the Palestinians, with the Arab states, and with the international community, the basis for negotiations has to hold out the prospect of success.

Translation: In other words, though the US is trying hard to stand with you, Israel, you now have to satisfy and negotiate with not only the Palestinians and bordering Arab states but also an alienated and pro-Palestinian “international community”. Israel — can’t you see? The whole world is against you. The Palestinians are unilaterally angling to obtain official statehood status at the UN. They will get it. That would be a disaster for you. I’m just trying to head off that catastrophe. Your only chance is to follow my strategy whether you like it or not. Help me help you!

I believe the President is also inferring that he can’t hold off Arab and international aspirations forever. Though he professes his support of Israel his support was very uncertain in the Gaza Flotilla incident last May. Only at the last second did he veto an extremely anti-Israel resolution by the UN Security Council.

All of this to say that President Obama’s intentions towards Israel , at the very least, remain very uncertain and unclear.

Remember!

Watch very closely what a leader does–not what he says–to know his true intentions.

God’s promise to Israel in the latter days:

If anyone stirs up strife, it is not from me; whoever stirs up strife with you shall fall because of you. (Isaiah 54: 14)

President Obama begins this important part of his speech by comparing Israel’s birth out of the ashes of the Holocaust to the Palestinian peoples suffering and pursuit of a homeland.

President Obama says:

…it is undeniable that the Palestinian people – Muslim and Christian – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than 60 years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the west bank, Gaza and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead.

Analysis:

First of all the “Palestinian people” have not been in pursuit of a homeland for 60 years. The Arab people that inhabited what is now Israel (and some still do live in Israel) were part of the Kingdom of Jordan. In other words they were Jordanian citizens and not pursuing a homeland. Jordan’s armies attacked Israel and were defeated in the 1948 War of Independence and again in the Six Day War of 1967. The Arab nations (Jordan included) tried to destroy Israel and were soundly defeated in both wars. That situation can in no way be compared to the incredible genocide committed against Jewish people in World War II. It was simply Arab aggression that has caused the current Palestinian suffering and displacement.

Obama, also, seems to legitimize the Palestinian refugee’s status by saying that they have waited in refugee camps for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. The Arabs waiting in refugee camps are there because their host Arab nations have chosen NOT to absorb them as Israel absorbed hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees from Arab nations after the Arabs lost the War of Independence. It is the host Arab nations who have perpetuated the suffering of the Arab/Palestinian refugees.

Obama continues with these choice words:

They endure the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation.

Analysis:

The humiliations, as Obama describes them, are a direct result of thousands of Arab/Palestinian bombs and terror attacks that force the Israeli government to spend untold millions to defend its borders and citizens against attack. Obama infers that this is somehow Israel’s fault and that they are being cruel taskmasters to the Palestinians when this is far from the truth.

He also characterizes Israel’s presence as occupation. This really annoys me. The rules of war are timeless and well known. If you wage a war of conquest you risk defeat and losing control of some or all of your own land and sovereignty. The spoils to the victor are great but the risk to the losers is absolute. When it comes to Israel, the rules of war do not seem to apply. Israel is the only country historically I know that when attacked, and is successful in repelling the aggressor and possessing some of the aggressors lands, is then told by the world that it must give back the land it has claimed as a spoil of war. Israel won the war. Israel has no obligation to do anything and should be commended for its graciousness as the victor. Certainly the US army, in displacing the Native Indianpeoples of North America, has felt zero obligation to restore America’s sovereignty to the Indian nations. The US has grudgingly handed over some miniscule lands but the Indians ultimately live under the watchful eyes of the US government. So much for consistency. Israel was and continues to be the victim of Arab aggression.

It gets worse. Obama continues with these words:

So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable.

Analysis: What is troubling with this statement is that it follows his assertion that Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria is occupation. This leaves the listener feeling that Israel is to blame for the intolerable suffering of the Palestinian people.

Obama continues…

America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity and a state of their own.

Analysis: It feels to the listener that Obama is blaming Israel, however subtly, for denying Palestinians a state which is properly their right. He is also, with these words, positioning himself on the world stage as a Prince Valiant, who will personally act to right this grave injustice. This is very dangerous politically. It puts Israel into the extremely uncomfortable and unfair position of hurting Obama’s international prestige if Israel disagrees with his approach to resolving the conflict. The onus should be on the aggressors…the Arabs. Instead Obama has subtly shifted the blame to Israel.

More from Obama…

Obama scolds the Palestinians and in particular Hamas and says:

Palestinians must abandon violence…Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements and recognize Israel’s right to exist.

Analysis: First of all, some of these requisites are non-starters for the Arabs. What if they refuse to budge on these issues? Is Obama saying Israel is off the hook? I don’t think so. He has already shifted the blame to Israel so the responsibility to do something concrete is on Israel not the Arabs.

That is why he follows his scolding of the Palestinians with a much more concrete and harsh assertion for Israel. He says:

The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.

He continues by requiring Israel to open its borders to Palestinian workers from Gaza and then West Bank.

…the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel’s security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be part of a road to peace and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.

Analysis:

I find it extremely arrogant for Obama to tell Israel that closing its borders (and for that matter building a security fence) to ward off potential terrorist acts is “against its security interest”. The last thing Israel wants to do is spend millions building security fences and closing their borders to the cheap and vital labor pool from Gaza and the West Bank. There is only one reason Israel does this…SELF DEFENSE.

Also…Why is the onus on Israel?. My Arab cousins are the aggressors. He should be asserting that the Arabs must honor past agreements and cease their terror attacks immediately. Peace cannot move forward and Israel cannot be expected to make peace until the violence stops. He makes no such clear assertion of that truth but continues to push Israel. Why? Because he knows that the Arabs are stubborn and notorious for giving up nothing in negotiations…only Israel is willing to take steps towards peace. If he is to get the peace process going his best chance is to pressure little Israel to make indeed another concession. This is a grave injustice.

Lastly and importantly, Obama says the following:

America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace.

Analysis: We will soon see if his actions match his rhetoric. If Israel will not be intimidated by the President and publicly refuses to enact measures that Obama requires that will jeopardize its security and survival, what measures will Obama take to force or coerce Israel into seeing things his way? I hope none. I believe the opposite.

Conclusion

What bothers me the most is President Obama’s very public shifting of blame for the Arab/Israeli conflict to Israel. I hope I am wrong about Obama but I believe his true heart and sympathies are revealed in his carefully chosen words in Cairo.

Part III will look at His change of position concerning Iran and its nuclear program.

Joel Chernoff

~The views contained in The Joel Chernoff Report are not necessarily views held by the MJAA~

Okay, okay . . . I know this post is a little late…but it has given me time to read and dissect Obama’s much anticipated speech to the Muslim world. In addition, I have read various news accounts and political pundit’s analyses of the speech and what they believe the significance might be.

Now it’s my turn. I have developed a four part series highlighting the most important issues as I see them. The articles are as follows:

Part I – Islam and Religious Freedom…A Dilemma

Part II – Palestinian/Israeli Conflict

Part III – Why does Osama Bin Laden Hate Obama?

Part IV – Confusing Turnaround on Iran’s Nuclear Capability

Supernatural Love

Several years ago, through quite unusual circumstances, God gave me a love…a supernatural love for my Moslem Arab cousins. This despite the fact that some of my Arab cousins have waged a fifty year war to destroy Israel and appear to hate the Jewish people. As I shared in the very first TJCR blog, I know that one day soon God will change all of that. I preface this article with a personal revelation because I want you to know that I am speaking what I believe is the truth not with rancor or anger but in love.

Part I – Islam and Freedom of Religion…A Dilemma

Shortly into President Obama’s Cairo speech he stated the following:

I have come to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

There are two ideas in that Obama’s statement that are just plain wrong. He says:

Islam is not exclusive and not competitive with us and…

Islam is tolerant and believes in the dignity of all men.

Along with President Obama, President George W. Bush and others have tried to assert for political reasons that somehow Islam is apeaceful religion and that radical Moslem terrorists have hijacked this peaceful Islamic religion.

This is a myth…a political fable

9-11 Terrorist Attack

The truth is that Islam is intolerant, aggressively competitive and violent at its core. Why. . . because its base theology teaches this. Islam’s objective is not to coexist peacefully in a tolerant world of religious freedom but to convert the world to Islam, if necessary, at the point of a sword. Every Muslim knows this because it is preached in mosques throughout the world.

Here are a few examples from Islam’s holy books:

“O Ye who believe! Murder those of the unbelievers…and let them find harshness in you.” [Koran, Repentance: 123]

“Humiliate the non-Muslims to such an extent that they surrender and pay tribute.” [Koran, Repentance: 29]

According to the Koran, the Jews try to introduce corruption (5:64), have always been disobedient (5:78), and are the enemies of Allah, the Prophet (Mohammed) and the angels (2:97-98)

A Muslims life is spared even if he kills a Christian intentionally, while a Muslim may only be required to die if he kills another Muslim. On the other hand, if a non-Muslim merely curses a Muslim, he must either be sentenced to death or be converted on the spot. The reason, as Mohammed said is that only Muslims’ blood is regarded equal.

As hundreds of thousands of Iranian Bahais found out when Ayatollah Khomeini took power, “any non-Muslim who is not a Jew or Christian is to be immediately executed if they do not convert on the spot to Islam. Jews and Christians are allowed to keep their religion as second class slaves with no civil rights and extra taxes not paid by Muslims.”

Islam’s Objective?

Plain and simple…that the world be unified under the crescent moon flag of Islam.

The Dilemma

The US and Western Europe are democracies which hold religious freedom as a fundamental right. However, these democracies envision a free environment based on the assumption that all religions coexist peacefully.

This is where things go terribly wrong.

Islamic Terrorist

Since Islam’s objective is that the world be converted by whatever means necessary it is by definition subversive and anti-democratic. Islam will simply use the freedom found in the west to subvert a country’s freedom and accomplish its religious objective.

So what does the US and other democratic countries do?

To outlaw the Moslem faith and expel all adherents to Islam would get the job done but would be by definition anti-democratic and contradictory to our own constitutional principle of religious freedom. There is no doubt that there are many nominal/secular in name only Moslems that would be perfectly happy to live a peaceful life in a free society.

However, knowing the true agenda of the radical Islamists and the aggressive combative nature of Islam’s theology, to let Islam grow within our borders unabated would be self defeating and dangerous to the future of freedom in the US.

Our founding fathers never envisioned that the constitution’s very freedoms would be used to undermine its existence by a religion that is subversive to its existence.

What is the answer?

An answer to this dilemma requires the wisdom of Solomon. The only answer I can offer is to pray for a spiritual revival in this country and wait for God to move supernaturally to resolve the Middle East Arab/Israeli crisis as described in the Final Arab/Jewish War.

Remember – There is only one God. He is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of Israel; and His agenda trumps all others!